[geocentrism] Re: Climate change

in red!

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:          
    JA
  From j a Wed Jun 13 20:48:35 2007
  OK -- JA it is. You see, when I'm writing, it's like I'm having a 
conversation. I'm addressing you, and from time to time it is appropriate to 
address you by name. The fact that you appear variously as JA, J A, ja, j a I 
find unsettling. As you prefer, I'll stick to JA and live with it.
  As for your responce: As long as you stick to your definitions, you can avoid 
the point I keep trying to bring to your attention.
  I don't see how an attempt to achieve clear unambiguous communication helps 
me to avoid this point of which you speak, the nature of which I cannot recall. 
Perhaps you would remind me of it in one or two sentences? It seems you are 
very critical of anyone with any religious belief, but you exempt yourself and 
anything "scientific" from the same type of criticism. IE.. you find a high 
probability that something is true because of some agreement you believe exists 
among those whom you have some sort of respect for, yet deny there is any 
"faith" involved. The "high probability" only exists in your mind - it is a 
rational for your faith. You think the agreement or consensus is real because 
you believe it is - you have faith in it being true. And you respect the 
scientific establishment because you have faith in it - it is obviously where 
your heart and mind are. You are like a blind black man, who advocates lynching 
all the blacks because you are a racisct who isn't aware of
 being black. You are a man of deeply convicted faith who denies any faith, all 
the while looking down your nose at those with faith. I hope that was short 
enough!
  Comparing you to what you dislike the most must be too unsettling to be 
considered.
  I've collected all your personal criticisms of me that I could find in your 
posts in the Climate Change thread. I'm not unsettled by any of them. If I was 
going to be unsettled by any comparison, I assure you that you have not named 
it. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be a common thread to your criticisms, 
so I'm also unaware of what it is that you think I might dislike the most.
  Criticisms you have levelled at me -
  My crtique of you, In short is, you fall to see in yourself that which you 
are most critical of in others.. 
  The Science Establishment is your God and Scientists your priests. Once a 
subject is defined by your priests, you fall lock-step behind them, until they 
change there minds, then you do to. Prove me wrong! What of modern science do 
you question or seriously doubt? Anything? 
  Your continued use of this is a sign of the superior, holier than thou 
attitude of an elitist! And that is not reasonable - except to an elitist
  History is full of people like you. I take back calling you a Lemming, I'll 
have to think up something more appropriate and much less innocent than that.
  You seem too conflicted to discuss this!
  To continue -
  Anywhere you see my use of the word belief you may replace it with idea or 
theory if it makes you and your dictionary more comfortable
  That would be pointless if you still believe it means something different 
from what most other users of English believe. Why should I care what others 
believe, do you have a scientific consensus to convince me otherwise?
  For the last paragraph, it will be more efficient to intersperse comments -
  As for your point about the story - that science is self correcting - is only 
an assertion, not a fact. You may produce thousands of examples of things once 
thought by science that have been changed or "corrected". How do you know the 
current thought is true? I don't. Then why do you have so much faith in it? 
Faith to the point of forcing others to do and act differently. And so long as 
you keep trying to ascribe absolute values to my utterances, you will continue 
to get this kind of response. I've explained this multiple times. You keep 
asserting your ownership of the truth or at least the most positive path 
torwards it. Maybe an old idea and the new idea are both incorrect, maybe the 
old idea was correct all along, maybe there's a little truth in both but 
neither are complete. Yes - and maybe the current idea is correct. And maybe 
religion is the opiate of the masses. Science has replaced religion as the 
opiate, or at least for many. Science is a club with rules that
 have nothing to do with science. This sounds like an expression of your 
personal predjudices. You certainly have shown no evidence, no corroborating 
opinions. Why should I give it any credence? This isn't a trial. Either you see 
something true in my point or you don't. Are you saying there is no truth of 
any sort in my statement?In school you learn the prevailing (presumed) 
concensus, you do not learn competing ideas or reasoning among conflicting 
ideas. Can you give me examples of a Baptist Sunday School introducing the 
students to the basics of Buddhism, Islam (both flavours) or sing Hindu hymns? 
How about Catholic Catechism classes? Menonite Christian? Jehovah's Witnesses? 
What does private or religious edjucation have to do with my point???? Nothing! 
Your bias is really showing here. Isn't science above indoctrination? Here you 
point out religious indoctrination to excuse it in science instruction, yet 
everywhere else you deny indoctrination in science!!!!School
 doesn't teach you everything you'll need for your life journey. No kidding. 
Sure would be nice if it gave more than indoctrination into your Non-god 
religion of science. School gives you a licence to learn. Not in todays world 
where you learn what to think instead of how to think. When you become an 
adult, you're expected to make some enquiries of your own. No you're not 
expected to enquire about anything, you've been given the answers, you're part 
of the masses and whatever you do, don't question the reigning secular 
worldview.  In science jobs and papers and grants you cannot go against the 
common beliefs among scientists - especially anything considered fundamental. 
In religion, if you try that, you'll be excommunicated or shunned or whatever 
word the particular religion favours. If there are many of you, you may -- 
depending on the period of history -- be involved in a bloody war. Again 
depending upon the date, you may be burned at the stake. Can you give me 
examples
 where science burned an unbeliever or fought a bloody war in support of 
scientific knowledge or understanding? Again, your answer has nothing to do 
with the point and shows your bias. So you agree with my statement???  If you 
want to assert a common scientific belief as truth to others who do not share 
the belief, then you need something more than your scientific concensus to 
convince. I wonder what it would take to convince you? There are people for 
instance, who believe that the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people 
financed by billions of dollars all working in full view upon the single 
largest specific scientific/engineering experiment ever undertaken by Man can 
be dismissed by accusations of lying. I don't really care about what others 
have dismissed. You could start with facts - but be ready to be challenged on 
whether you've actually given a fact or simply an interpretation based on a 
worldview. What if something really fundamantal to science were simply wrong,
 and so many great scientific beliefs were based on it, how would that ever be 
corrected? Have you learned nothing from the Mendel/Lysenko example I gave you? 
Have you learned nothing from the history of science or the history of human 
nature? And if it was, what about the people who believed the nonsence all 
along? They were simply wrong. Well, I guess that pointing out, that judgement 
from God might make being "simply wrong" a little bit of an understatement, 
wouldn't mean much to you. I guess you see no problem in people living thier 
lives completely ignorant of the truth? I guess being wrong is fine and dandy 
as long as one has absolute faith in a process or system that will correct the 
wrong someday. There were gross consequences of course for those who backed 
Lysenko. And it might be noted in passing, some degree of discomfort for those 
who opposed Mendel. Did you see the cartoon by 'Bob - the Angry Flower' I 
posted some little time ago? It sheds light on your
 question also, with the eloquence which so often marks the work of cartoonists.
  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  From j a Thu Jun 14 16:59:25 2007
  When you find an error in the first sentence of a reference, it does tend to 
lower your confidence in that reference -
  We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough ? 
irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global 
temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent ?  I'm sorry, what's the correct 
percentage and how far off is his quote? Also, where did you get your correct 
percentage?
  Note however that it is corrected in two places towards the bottom.
  Then we have this little gem -
  o Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as 
he wants.
  Wouldn't that be nice? I think it would be fun to drive on the other side of 
the road from most other people, you know -- all the lemmings! So it's either 
anarchy or total governmental control for you? Are you one of those guys who 
thinks communism would have turned out really great if wasn't for that darn USA 
and the arms race?
Also, the man is an economist, has only ever been a money man. This is a bit 
like consulting a portait or landscape painter about the cause of recurring 
violent stomache cramps. Economists often have the most enlightening views on 
things, being trained to analyze costs and benefits. Also, I know an artist who 
has excellent knowledge on natural solutions for health ailments.
  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  I think this will do for now.
  JA, in closing, may I remark that nearly all of your points are of the 
'maybe' or 'what if' type. This is not very helpful. So is your denial of your 
ideas and thoughts having anything to do with faith or a belief system. I find 
it funny that your defence of some of my points about the "religious control" 
of science was only to point out that religions exercise a religious control.
 
  Paul D
  


  
---------------------------------
  Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on 
all webmail accounts. Find out more.

 
---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Other related posts: